Rick Santorum won Thursday night’s debate in South Carolina. In doing so, he may also have forced a major turning point in this presidential campaign. Before Thursday, Newt Gingrich, I believe, was seen by many voters as a flawed candidate, who nonetheless remained a viable choice for the Republican nomination because he was the best debater among the non-Romneys in the Republican field. After last night, that is no longer true. Santorum has become a better debater than Gingrich. Why? First, because unlike both Romney and Gingrich, Santorum is clearly expressing his heartfelt beliefs — a rare thing among American politicians, and a thing, I believe, that is recognized and prized by voters. Second, Santorum’s well-stated attacks on both Romney and Gingrich hit their marks and Romney and Gingrich did not effectively rebut them. This was especially true of Santorum’s point that both Romney and Gingrich supported an individual mandate for health insurance — the most important reason people who love liberty reject Obamacare. Finally, unlike Gingrich, who incessantly tells people he is a “Reagan conservative” — which is a very good thing, to be sure — Santorum has shown the courage, including in last night’s debate, to lay out his own unique vision for the future of America. That vision, which is generally consistent with conservative principles, seems to be drawn from his personal experience and from his personal analysis of the present historical situation rather than from his desire to associate himself with a great conservative hero of the past.
If you want to be a conservative hero for the future, you better have a compelling vision for the future as well as the ability to persuade people to follow you toward it. Last night, Santorum demonstrated he may be developing exactly that ability.
Hi, Terry. A most fascinating contribution. Please read it again in three days time. Calling it simply obsolete, then, won't do it justice.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh, hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Stop bogarting, time for you to pass to the next guy.
Never has a guy been so out of place as Santorum was. I like the part where he poured the gasoline on himself and lit the match though. Classic Santorum.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hope Medved reads this....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid we watch the same debate? I though Santorum was horrible. He comes across as a whiney unlikeable jerk!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe must have been watching different debates. Santorum did fine. He has done fine in all the debates. Newt rocked the joint. Newt took the night by a mile.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Santorum is clearly expressing his heartfelt beliefs "
I don't think this has ever been a problem for Santorum - people not believing that the positions he articulates are "heartfelt beliefs". In fact, I think it's just the opposite: People (Read: women), are scared to death precisely because they feel that Santorum means what he says.
"the most important reason people who love liberty reject Obamacare"
What about the people who "love liberty" who also don't like the $7T expansion of Medicare that Rick Santorum gleefully supported?
How is providing "free prescription drugs" (without any funding mechanism) a more "free market" idea than a state demanding that individuals purchase private insurance?
Would universal payer be conservative so long as their is not a mandate to pay for it?
Do I like the individual mandate in MA? Nope, but I don't live in MA, so ultimately I couldn't care less what they do in their state. However, I do have to pay federal taxes and I do have children who will eventually have children that will then have to find a way to pay for MMA. In this regard, I'm not too happy that Rick Santorum thinks it's perfectly reasonable to give an obscene amount of government largess and paying for that largess by saddling our grandchildren with a mountain of Chinese IOUs. We apparently differ in our definition of "conservative hero".
We have had 17 debates and not a single moderator has asked Santorum about that Prescription Drug Act vote. That's not a coincidence. It's the only thing the liberal media likes about Santorum. That vote is a Santorum benefit, not a bug.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, of course. How much of that money end up in the hands of the media through commercials for drugs?
TV is dominated by commercials for phones, cars, and prescription drugs.
Lawyers, too, when the drugs (or whatever product) goes bad.
And then we wonder why everything costs so much...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou leaning to Ron Paul now?
The Drug Plan vote is akin to Obama making a big deal about the Iraq War vote when he was not in the Senate to have to take a stand.
Any doubt Newt or Romney would not have voted like Rick if they were in the Senate at the time? In fact, I'm sure there is a quote or two somewhere of both men pledging their support for the legislation.
So unless you are looking for Paul, I don't get your angst over this issue given the remaining players on the stage.
And the key is that Obama isn't going to make hay over the drug plan as he will over Romneycare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Any doubt Newt or Romney would not have voted like Rick if they were in the Senate at the time? "
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that every Republican candidate that has been on that debate stage the last 12-weeks, save Ron Paul, would have voted for Part D. I'm only pointing that Santorum isn't the conservative savior that some have made him out to be. Sure, on social conservative issues, he's as orthodox as they come. On everything else domestic, he's maybe to the left of Romney and certainly not to the right of Romney. For six years, Santorum didn't see or hear about a domestic spending program he didn't want to increase.
Secondly, I'm tired of listening to guys paint Romneycare as socialized medicine when the horse they picked actually voted for something that is socialized medicine - and, it's the worse kind of socialized medicine; the kind you don't send the bill to the grandchildren.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRick Santorum was definitely not the winner of tonight's debate. The winners were Newt and Ron Paul. Romney seems to be trying too hard not to let his inner Democrat show... Mitt needs to switch parties. . . he is NOT a Republican . . .far from it. It was heartening to finally see someone bring up the Romneycare issue however.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've missed Santorum's "unique vision for America". When was that exactly?
A "conservative hero for the future"? Huh? Do you mean "A conservative hero if you believed GW Bush was conservative"?
Santorum has been getting a pass because no one thinks he can win. He's running as the "blue collar hero"? The man made over $1,000,000 last year simply for being an ex-Senator. That line about the taxes was cute, but it also hid that he's done plenty well financially himself. And unlike Romney, he didn't do it based on any particular skill other than being elected.
So what are these "heartfelt beliefs" of his? That he's pro-life? OK, that makes him like almost 90% of Republican politicians. Pro-defense? That distinguishes him how?
Pretty thin gruel for the "conservative of the future" as opposed to anyone else.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum didn't lay out a vision last night, and this post was obviously pre-written as a press release piece, not befitting NRO at all. Even those who intnsely dislike Newt admit he won (except maybe OldFan), and nobody honestly believes Santorum won.
Santorum's vision for America is one where "morality" - as defined by DC beauracrats - trumps the will of the people in individual states. At Ames, he said that Paul, Bachmann, and Romney were all believing in the "10th Amendment run amuck", and (Santorum believes) that states do not have the authority to enact their own laws which Santorum believes contradict national morality (eg, healthcare mandates, marriage laws, drug laws, prostitution, gambling, etc).
Besides, Santorum already set out his truly unique "vision" for America in 1996, and it is one that no self-respecting fan of Buckley should accept:
"This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Jeffrey is mistaken.
This is the problem...
"If you want to be a conservative hero for the future"
How did that work out for Michelle Bachmann Mr. Jeffrey? Did her, "I am the real Conservative" win her the Nomination? The fight routine? No.
And here is another problem for the very accusatory Mr. Santorum, who is peevishly shaking his head while others respond to some of his less than honest claims. Rick Santorum is far from ideal, he is awash in earmarks, opposed "Right To Work", even backed Arlen Specter offer the more capable - conservative Toomey, etc.
Did you notice Rick did not mention Felons voting this time? Must not have been a good move the last time - when some sideline pundits thought Rick won the exchange with Mr. Romney. He didn't. Rick Santorum is a typical Washington Politician of 17 years. He is even speaking about censorship with regards to the internet - that is going to be a wonderful boost for all Conservatives this 2012.
I really think you are lost in the competition of proving oneself to be the Conservative Champion. But we know both Newt and Rick are far from the "dream". And it also lacks the full story for the basis for the Job as President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOld Fanatic, old girl, everyone is mistaken if they don't fall in line with you the czarina of propaganda at NRO. You could make more money blogging for Pravda (or Prada) or Xinhua but try closer to home--HuffPo. Guess you got the message about 'offerings' and 'fashion'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI like Rick Santorum but his constant intense attacks against the other nominees began to be a turn off for me. I thought he should have spent more energy attacking obama. Michelle Bachmann turned me off the same way with her bull dog approach against every nominee that threatened her status as the new and improved.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFantastic debate. I wasn't planning on watching the whole thing, but I couldn't turn away. With all the weaker candidates gone, the stage was intense and electric. Four very smart guys trying to outmaneuver one another, with lots of detail and originality, and fewer platitudes.
I think Newt ran away it, and will likely win SC by more than 5 points. He looks totally comfortable, totally in control, poised in a leader-like way, and just plain huge. I liked his line that he shot back at when he was called grandiose by Santorum: (paraphrasing) "Yeah, I have big ideas, but it's a big country, we're a big people, we have big issues....etc".
I'm still rooting for Romney, but I won't be disappointed if it's Newt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...Santorum’s well-stated attacks on both Romney and Gingrich hit their marks .... This was especially true of Santorum’s point that both Romney and Gingrich supported an individual mandate for health insurance...."
The only problem with Santorum's claim that he never supported an individual mandate is that it's untrue. In an article covering Santorum's 1994 election campaign, The Daily Call reported: "Santorum ... would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits." So, Santorum has never supported an individual mandate -- this year. He did support one back in 1994!
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat commentary is not only wrong it sounds like a campaign press release. You have got to be kidding with this?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbsolutely Rick Santorum is the most conservative. But just as Newt can't help being Newt. Santorum (who we think has good ideas and good instinct) can't help being smug and indignant. Even though he won/tied Iowa, he acts as if he's still struggling to be noticed. On a night when he had a huge opportunity to look presidential and really surge ahead, he just looked irritated....like he can't believe everyone doesn't see his glowing record of conservative perfection. It completely put-off my wife by the end of the night. If he's on a stage next to Obama and comes off that way, it won't matter that Obama is the worst president in history, they won't vote for Rick because they won't like him.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeriously? In which alternate universe were you watching the debate? Santorum came across as whiny and petulant. I like the guy, but his only good moment was his attack on Obama for gutting the military. Gingrich, who must come across as a slimy Republican version of Bill Clinton to most, clearly won the debate. He may be personally reprehensible but boy can he turn a phrase. Romney was a strong second. Paul, who managed to avoid any foreign policy wackiness, was a distant third.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse